List Collider public editorial or RSS sections accepted by collider_headlines. Pass a listed section to collider_headlines to fetch story cards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the sections are 'public editorial or RSS' and 'accepted by collider_headlines', which provides useful context about the data type and compatibility. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, so it adds some but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, both front-loaded and essential: the first defines what is listed, the second explains how to use the result. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover read-only and open-world behavior, the description provides everything needed: what it lists and how to use the output. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is empty and there are no parameters to document. The description correctly does not discuss parameters. Per the rubric, zero parameters merits a baseline of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'Collider public editorial or RSS sections', scoped further to those 'accepted by collider_headlines'. This distinguishes it from siblings like collider_headlines, collider_article, and collider_news, which serve different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear context for usage: 'Pass a listed section to collider_headlines to fetch story cards.' This tells the agent what to do with the output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
